You anticipated my next question - the time control. I was thinkin gof 30 minutes too. Any feedback?
- Don On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 21:10 -0800, David Fotland wrote: > I'd like to see 19x19. No one plays the game on any other board size than > 19x19, so the other sizes are not very interesting. The current strong > programs are all tuned only for 19x19, and the patterns and strategy are > quite different at other board sizes. > > Of course you should keep the 9x9 server running as well, since it's > probably easier to tune algorithms on the smaller board size. You probably > want longer games at 19x19. I'd like to see 30 minutes per side, since > that's pretty typical for human games. > > -David > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey > > Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 8:49 PM > > To: computer-go > > Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS? > > > > > > Did you have a specific size in mind? It seems like a 19x19 server > > would be the natural thing. > > > > I could run the old server until I get the new one finished. > > > > - Don > > > > > > On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 20:29 -0800, David Doshay wrote: > > > A few months ago I suggested a number of stepwise increases > > in board > > > size to see how the algorithms scaled. It seems to me > > having just 2 > > > data points does not say enough about how the MC (or any other) > > > algorithm scales, so I wanted to be able to graph some measure of > > > strength against increasing board size. > > > > > > The responses showed some interest in the normal board > > sizes, but not > > > enough for me to think it was worth it to host the servers. > > Several of > > > the program authors indicated that they could only run one > > size at a > > > time, and I assumed that this meant that having multiple > > CGOS servers > > > would only detract from the usefulness of the 9x9, so I did > > not start > > > any other size of server. > > > > > > If things have changed, I have the resources to be a CGOS-N host. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11, Dec 2006, at 7:53 PM, David Fotland wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Don, > > > > > > > > Clearly UCT and monte carlo is very well suited to 9x9 go. It > > > > works much > > > > better than the traditional computer go algorithms, and > > it is much, > > > > much > > > > simpler. > > > > > > > > Do you have any plans to set up a CGOS server for 19x19 go? I'd > > > > like to see > > > > how well UCT/MC scales to 19x19 go. I don't think it will work > > > > well at > > > > 19x19, but I'd like to see some experiments to see if I'm wrong. > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > computer-go mailing list > > > > computer-go@computer-go.org > > > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > computer-go mailing list > > > computer-go@computer-go.org > > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > computer-go mailing list > > computer-go@computer-go.org > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > > > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
